Other Terasem Journals

Global Geoethical Implementation of Nanofactory Production: Multi-Stakeholder Engagement for Effective Policy and Administrative Structures

Mike Treder

page 2 of 4

The impact of implementing molecular nanotechnology is bound to cross borders. Due to the fact that a small nanofactory can make Treder a larger one, a person could easily smuggle the former into a country where nanofactories are prohibited. This small nanofactory could be as small as a penny, and a person could easily conceal it in her pocket as she enters the country. Once inside, she could use it to create larger nanofactories within that country. It may be impossible to control where nanofactories exist or do not exist.

Potential Dangers
Many dangers are inherent in nanofactories. One very serious risk is the potential for an unstable arms race. The capability for rapid prototyping could enable countries to increase their military arsenals by the billions within a few days. Unlike the nuclear arms race, which stabilized as we reached a level of mutually assured destruction, this arms race would never reach that level due to the exponential speed at which weapons could be produced.

If one nation, corporation, or individual gains a monopoly over this technology, they would be able to literally rule the world in a short period of time. We must contemplate the types of restrictions necessary to curtail this.

Nanofactories pose the risk of ubiquitous, intrusive, networked surveillance that could be used by terrorists, the government, corporations, individuals, or even the paparazzi to watch our every move and possibly use it against us. We are close to this type of invasion of privacy already, however; nanotechnology will make it even easier.

A black market could result if the technology is not apportioned in a manner that is viewed as fair. If it is too greatly withheld, someone may attempt to smuggle it out and make it available in a way that might not be as safe.

Environmental damage could easily occur if products are cheap to make and discard and we have not yet created a disassembler. We could end up with a vast heap of nanolitter, which would create an environmental problem in a short period of time.

Solutions
Finding solutions to these potential dangers is not an easy task. Jane Jacobs coined the term “systems of survival”[1] to describe three groups – guardians (government, police, militia), commercial (business and industry), and the open source group which favors the free dissemination of information. Each of these groups will want to make use of this technology in order to achieve their goals, which might be in conflict with one another. This must be taken into account or else we will end up with someone who does not like the rules and will find a way to break them.

No single solution can be applied. A patchwork of solutions - trying to fix this or that problem as it arises - could only make things worse. A fix that applies to one problem could only exacerbate another problem.

In an ideal world, a single development program appears to be the safest solution. This would be an international cooperative program to simultaneously develop molecular nanomanufacturing. All countries would agree - for the sake of world safety and to save the human race - to develop it together. This would avoid the arms race by applying rules that govern everyone.

Footnotes
1. Jacobs, Jane. Systems of Survival. New York: Vintage, 1992. (back to top)

<previous page 1 2 3 4 next page>
Back to Current Issue Contents

The Terasem Pledge

We pledge allegiance to the flag of the collective consciousness of Terasem, and to the principles for which it stands, education, persistently, with diversity, unity, and joyful immortality everywhere.

TerasemJournal.com Home | Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology | Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness
Submission Guidelines | Editors and Sponsorship | Contact